INTRODUCTION

SCOPE

This document presents a statement of heritage significance and assessment of impact from proposed works to the south-east ground floor room of Woodseats Farmhouse (Figure 1).

The information provided here draws upon, and supplements, an assessment of heritage significance presented in a previous desk-based assessment (TJC 2017), providing further evidence in relation to new proposals.

The assessment has been informed through a site visit and other relevant sources listed in the bibliography. It has been undertaken in accordance with guidance published by Historic England, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists as set out in the Supporting Material section. BUILDING APPRAISAL

SOUTH-EAST WALL

The south-east wall is an external wall faced with finely dressed sandstone blocks running to regular courses (Figure 2) and backed with roughly dressed sandstone laid to uneven courses (Figure 3).

Within the west of the wall is a two-light window incorporating an inserted door, narrowing its left light, with plainly dressed sandstone surround (Figure 2). The internal sill of the window has been lowered to form a bench.

The altered window would have been equal in dimensions to that to its west which also has mullions and transoms recessed from the face of the wall. Evidence suggestive of this arrangement are alterations at the level of the transom within the jambs of the window; and two sockets for stanchions in the lintel of the eastern light (Figure 5).

Within the eastern end of the wall is a small single square window set within a blocked door (Figure 2). The blocked door has a quoined surround with ogee moulded reveal with heavily eroded decorative stops, (Figure 4). The lower part of the door is blocked in dressed sandstone blocks, a distinctive hammer tooling differentiating from the fabric elsewhere. The plinth steps down to the door with mitred corners.

Internally there is a driven wrought iron pintle (downward facing) above mid-level within the east jamb, and a second (upward facing) c.30 cm from floor level. These pintles do not appear to be a matching pair and may not be original. In common with other doors in the building, it is possible this door would originally have been harr-hung. The western jamb of the door has been cut back to create a wider recess, with inserted timber lintel (Figure 4).

NORTH-EAST WALL

The north-east wall is an external wall faced with finely dressed sandstone blocks running to largely regular courses (Figure 6) and backed with roughly dressed sandstone lain to uneven courses (Figure 7).

Towards the centre of the internal face is a projecting chimney piece incorporating a wider fireplace formed from vertical square, plain jamb and lintel stones, with ogee moulded string course (Figure 7). Above the string is a reused timber beam supporting the ends of the spine beams of the first floor and the masonry of the chimney breast above.

Right of the fireplace is an altered area of walling incorporating flues and truncated remains of a double oven. The flues extent diagonally within the wall venting into the adjacent fireplace. Above the oven is a probable blocked socket (Figure 7).

Left of the fireplace (Figure 8) are two recessed openings, the first comprising a rectangular timber cased cupboard with single shelf, and the second a blocked window with splayed jamb and timber lintel and stone sill. A plain stone lintel is evident externally, with downward extensions to either side indicating the original width of the opening. The jamb and lintel have been removed and the opening blocked (Figure 8). Figure 2: South-east wall: exterior (1m scale)

Figure 3: South-east wall: interior (1m scale)

Figure 4: Stop to external jamb of blocked door (10cm scale)

Figure 5: Window showing scars of transom, and stanchions

Sockets for removed stanchions

Alterations to masonry to remove transoms Figure 6: North-east wall: exterior (2m scale)

Figure 7: North-east wall: interior (showing detail of blocked socket to right)

Figure 8: Detail of blocked window and cupboard in north part of the north-east wall (interior: left, exterior: right) (10cm scale) NORTH-WEST WALL

The north-west wall (Figure 9) is an internal division, comprising of a horizontal beam with single central post. The beam has an ovolo moulded chamfer facing into the room. Sockets in the soffit of the beam indicate there were vertical muntin for a panelled screen. An empty socket at c.2m from the floor on the west side of the post could correspond to a removed door lintel, whilst a square socked in the beam could indicate the position of the former door post (Figure 10).

Extending north-east from the post is a mid-rail, evidently a later addition as it does not have sockets corresponding with those in the beam. The walling above and below this rail is of a finely dressed ashlar, incorporating a central upper rectangular blocking.

The wall south-west of the post is rebuilt in modern blockwork.

SOUTH-WEST WALL

The south-west wall (Figure 11) is an internal division, built from irregularly coursed squared sandstone. At its northern end is a doorway with ashlar quoined surround and rebated jamb retaining circular holes in the sill and lintel for an inward opening harr hung door. At the southern end of the wall is an inserted doorway with timber lintel.

FLOOR

The floor is of sandstone slabs, re-laid level with no signs of wear, above an underfloor heating system. The lower part of the walls around the floor have been coated with a sika damp proof system.

CEILING

The ceiling structure comprises two main north-east to south-west aligned beams, with ovolo moulded chamfers (Figure 12). The north-east ends of the beams have been extended with a bolted scar joint to a plain chamfered timber (Figure 14). The floor joists are jointed to the beam with soffit tenons with diminished shoulders and have slightly stepped chamfered edges (Figure 13). Notably, the western 3 to 4 joists in each bay are not chamfered (Figure 15). All the joists have the marks of a removed lath and plaster ceiling.

A scar runs north-west to south-east across the ceiling reflecting the position of a removed partition wall aligned on the eastern jamb of the door in the south-east elevation.

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF SMOKE HOOD

In addition to the features noted in the room surveyed, there are further features on the floors above that are indicative of a former timber-framed smoke hood in place of the current chimney breast.

This includes a line of three redundant sockets on the bottom of the ceiling beams in the room above, in addition to a cut-out slope on their inside edges (Figures 16-17); and three socketed corbels supporting the chimney stack (Figure 18). Figure 9: North-west wall (1m scale)

Figure 10: Detail of underside of ceiling beam, showing redundant sockets and marking potential position of former door post and lintle

Figure 11: South-west wall (1m scale) Figure 12: Detail of moulded ceiling beam

Figure 13: Detail of moulded ceiling joist

Figure 14: Scarf joint extension to beams

Figure 15: Joists in S corner without moulding

Figure 16: Detail of first floor ceiling beam sockets

Figure 17: Detail of first floor ceiling beam sockets

Figure 18: Detail of SE chimney stack with socketed corbels Figure 19: Plan and elevation of the site STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

PHASING

PHASE 1 (1600-1650): Construction, originally comprising the principal living space and kitchen (typically referred to as the house-part or house-body) of an end-lobby entrance plan dwelling with evidence surviving demonstrating the location of the original door, heck, bressummer, smoke hood, and doorways into adjacent rooms. The hall was the social heart of the home, where food was cooked, and where laborers may have slept.

PHASE 2 (1650-1800): Extension to rear, reconfiguration of staircase and potentially the rebuilding of the eastern part of the north-west wall.

PHASE 3 (1800-1900): Rearrangement of access into the building through the removal of the end-lobby door and insertion of a central door leading into a corridor; and the replacement of the open fire in the hall with a smaller fireplace reflecting technological improvement. The addition of an oven at this time indicates cooking activities still took place here.

PHASE 4 (1900-1970): Alterations to access within the rear of the building and expansion of agricultural buildings. There are no changes attributed to this phase within the area of study.

PHASE 5 (1970-Present): Subdivision of rooms on upper floors; and rearrangement of access in some locations during the early part of this period. More recent works include the relaying of the floor, stripping of plaster and removal of Phase 3 corridor.

HERITAGE INTERESTS

Historic Interest

The form and character of Woodseats Farm, and its probable date of construction in 1637, places it within a period of increased house building in England, known as the Great Rebuilding, considered to have commenced during the 1560s, reaching West Yorkshire around 1600 where it peaked during the 1670s (Hoskins, 1953: 44; RCHME, 1986: 109). Historic England give the average date for this period within the Yorkshire and Humber region as 1650 (Historic England, 2006c: 7). Within this context, Woodseats farmhouse is likely to have been within the early to mid-part of this period in South Yorkshire, enhancing its historical interest.

The end-lobby entrance planform of the building is of very high historic interest in respect to how home life was organised at the time. Firstly, it marked a departure from the earlier long-house arrangement of family and animal accommodation under one roof of which Woodseats is a relatively early example. Secondly, it demonstrated the continued importance of the hall to life on the farm, with the main entrance leading directly into it with the parlour, functional rooms, and staircase to the upper chambers all situated beyond. This arrangement is a typical feature of both the middle and higher status farming houses within the north of England during the 17th Century, and is in contrast to the south where separate entry into the parlour was increasingly common in higher status farmhouses and is seen to illustrate a growing social separation between the farmer and their labourers (Mercer, 1975: 68).

Early 19th Century alterations to the hall include the replacement of the open hearth with a fireplace, and the repositioning of the door from the end of the elevation towards the centre with a corridor formed down one side of the room. The creation of the corridor, in particular, circumvented the hall; reflecting a reduction in its status and the rise of the parlour as a reception room as illustrated by the new doorway directly to it in the north-west wall. These changes have illustrative historical value in relation to the changes in fashion and technological advances in heating that occurred during the period but have not been found to be associated with a historically significant event.

Architectural and Artistic Interest

The essentially double-bayed elevation of Woodseats Farmhouse is a feature of the local tradition, differing from the typically tri-partite form of contemporary halls in West Yorkshire. Other examples of the period in the wider Bradfield area alone include Onesacre Hall (also built by the Stead family - Grade II\*, NHLE: 1191806), Swinock Hall (Grade II, NHLE: 1132820), Hallfield House (Grade II, NHLE: 1192122) and Fair House (Grade II\*, NHLE: 1132863). Fair House, as a local example of another end-lobby house, has notably suffered very few changes, preserving its end-lobby entrance internal bressummer, and plan form. Recent work at this property has also reinstated the smoke hood, timber framed flue, and a smoking box.

Within this context, the relative height of Woodseats Farmhouse, the quality of its materials, general symmetry, and adoption of hierarchical order to fenestration would have appeared fashionable at time of construction, indicating the wealth and wider connections of the occupants. The number of heated chambers and craftsmanship evident in the detailing of door chamfer stops, panelling, beams and joists also exhibits a degree of quality and investment to the interior of the building.

The end-lobby entrance plan developed in Derbyshire and the counties further north during the 17th Century, often possessing the entrance to one side of the principal elevation but sometimes alternatively arranged through an entry in the gable (Barley, 1990: 152). This arrangement reflected the sub-division of hearth from the main body of the hall in northern houses of the period through the introduction of a hood above the fireplace, lit from its own window and shielded from draughts by a screen (heck or speer) to one side (ibid. 147). The hood was supported on a beam (bressummer), at no more than head-height, that extended from the screen to the opposite wall of the hall. In situating the hearth against a gable wall, the gable could readily support the smoke hood and chimney, an external wall was provided for a window to light the enclosed area, and the low hood would not present a constraint for doors into adjacent rooms.

Later alterations removed all aspects of the original subdivision and planform of the room: moving the door so that it entered into a passage rather than a hall and removing the internal division between hall and hearth provided by the bressummer. The centring of the door provided for a more symmetrical layout in line with the fashions of the time, although its design is markedly less well executed than earlier work and its insertion at the expense of mutilating the order and window of the façade which raises the question as to what extent architectural endeavour formed part of the decision to relocate the door.

Archaeological Interest

The structural remains of the former heck, bressummer, smoke hood and fire-window are all of archaeological interest in preserving evidence of the original form of the building. Further evidence may also survive within the fabric of the building in relation to how the building changed through time and how it was used.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE

Woodseats Farm possesses a national level of heritage significance in respect of its special architectural and historical interest, which is recognised in its status as a Grade II Listed Building.

Elements of the building do not contribute equally to its significance, reflecting the varying degree of interest embodied in its fabric, where there is capacity to support change without loss of significance, and where there are opportunities for significance to be enhanced. This value is expressed in line with the scale provided in Appendix 1.

Overall, the front room of Woodseats Farmhouse is considered to make a high contribution to the overall national significance of the building, deriving from:

- A very high level of architectural and historical interest as an early, and notably grand, example of the regionally distinctive end-lobby entrance plan farmhouse, the character and arrangement of which is still legible despite later changes including the removal of its original external door, lobby and fireplace;

- A low level of architectural interest associated with the changes to plan form during the 19th century with the movement of the door, insertion of the corridor and replacement of the fireplace. These alterations represent a commonplace change in line with wider fashions at the time and are of limited architectural interest in respect to their style and quality of execution.

- A moderate level of historical interest in respect to the illustrative value of the form and fabric of the building in demonstrating the changing role of the hall within the house, and the technological interest in the changing design of fireplaces for heating and cooking;

- A high level of archaeological interest in relation to the blockings, insertions and other alterations to its fabric evident within the building, and how they demonstrate the development of the building and the changing use of the hall. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL

The application seeks retrospective permission for a number of alterations already actioned and provides further detail relevant to complete the works, comprising:

1. HG01: Replace infill in western part of north-east wall, block doorway and re-plaster;
2. HG03: Remove corridor partition and block door in south-west corner of roof;
3. HG60: Clean internal fabric (beams, timber framing, and masonry);
4. HM51 & HG22: Install underfloor heating and repair and replace flag floor; and
5. HM50: Install sika tanking application to 900mm lower course of masonry of all walls;

A range of additional works are also proposed:

06. HG10: Repair rubble fire back and stone jambs of fireplace;
07. HG63: Dry-lined plaster interior
08. HM02 & W1.04: Unblocking and reinstating a door in the south-east corner of the building;
09. HM01 & W1.02: Removal of south-west door and reinstatement of former window;
10. HG61: Install new skirting fixed to wall plaster;
11. HG62: Ceiling finish, joist and beam repair;
12. HG63: Install window boards.
13. HG09 & W1.05: reinstate the fireside window.

Details of these proposals are provided in the Schedule of Works, drawings and specifications accompanying the application (MHH 2019 & WCA 2019). An impact assessment is presented in Table 1 below.

OVERARCHING APPROACH

The principal objectives of the current proposal are twofold, the first is to renovate the room; and the second is to restore a greater legibility of the Phase 1 circulation and external aspect of the building.

The approach of the first objective has been to take back the room to its core fabric, conserve it, and make improvements to heating and to alleviate damp. The works, whilst resulting in the loss of historic fabric of heritage interest, are not contrary to the long-term conservation of the building and can be suitable conservation strategies where justified. Unfortunately, the work was commenced without consultation or consent from the local planning authority to demonstrate the stages of investigation and design that led up to the implemented approach. A schedule of works detailing the decision-making process and techniques used in undertaking the works has since been produced, which provides a useful baseline for determining the original condition of lost fabric, and the harm arising from its loss. For this application, the strategy for completing or reversing works initiated has been undertaken in consideration of the balance of harm and benefit arising from either action, discussed in Table 1.

The approach of the second objective has been designed in accordance with Historic England’s Conservation Principles (2008). In adopting this philosophy, it has been necessary to acknowledge that the unauthorised works to the property have resulted in the removal of historic fabric, and that reinstatement could not fully mitigate the loss of heritage significance these works have caused. Rather than proposing a restoration of the recently lost fabric which would require the introduction of new material to imitate the material that has been lost, it is considered that a partial restoration of aspects of the Phase 1 hall would be more sensitive in terms of the authenticity and integrity of the building and result in a greater enhancement of its key heritage interests.

The following reasoning has been followed in respect to answering the specific requirements identified by Historic England for the acceptable restoration of a significant place (2008: 55):

a. the heritage values of the elements that would be restored decisively outweigh the values of those that would be lost;

The affected fabric relates to the Phase 3 (1800-1900) reorganisation of the hall at Woodseats Farm, an aspect of the building which is of low architectural and medium historical interest and which positively contribute to the building’s national significance.

The Phase 1 (1600-1650) circulation pattern at Woodseats Farm is an aspect of the building which is of very high architectural and historical interest, the legibility of which and its contribution to the building’s national significance will be greatly enhanced by the proposed restoration.

b. the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the place, and is executed in accordance with that evidence;

The proposed alterations aim to reinstate the elements of the circulation of Woodseats farmhouse’s hall for which there is convincing evidence; namely the re-establishment of its original dimensions through the removal of a corridor; the reinstatement of its external entrance and fireside window; and the blocking of inserted doors into the parlour and rear ancillary room. Whilst evidence for a heck, open hearth and earlier doorway to the rear ancillary room exist, it is not deemed that there is sufficient knowledge of their form to reinstate and that the restoration of the hearth would require the loss of a Phase 2 fireplace which is of architectural and historical merit in its own right.

c. the form in which the place currently exists is not the result of an historically significant event;

The former fabric associated with the Phase 3 reorganisation is not associated with a documented significant event, either locally or nationally, but rather reflects a commonplace alteration of the period respecting the change in domestic organisation and the role of the hall.

d. the work proposed respects previous forms of the place;

The proposed works are based on a detailed understanding of the Phase 1 circulation pattern.

e. the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable.

The proposed works will not establish any further maintenance requirements and will carry out essential maintenance and repairs that will ensure the long-term conservation of the structure.

### Table 1: Assessment of Proposals (ordering coordinated to Schedule of Works; MHH 2019)

| Proposal | Potential Effects | Sensitivity | Effect | Heritage Impact Assessment | |----------|-------------------|-------------|--------|---------------------------| | HG01 | Replace infill in western part of north-east wall and re-plaster

- Loss of Phase 3-4 fabric
- Erosion of Phase 3 planform & circulation
- Enhancement of Phase 1 planform & circulation | H | o | The proposal has removed a section of wailing that comprised a mixture of brickwork and blockwork incorporating a door at its western end. The alignment of this door is attributed to the Phase 3 reorganisation which added a central entrance in the south elevation and corridor, although the fabric was evidently of Phase 4 and 5 suggesting the area had been reworked. Structural evidence suggests this wall was originally of plank and muntin with a door towards the central post.\
  The proposal has rebuilt this wall in blockwork, blocking the position of the Phase 3 door, aiming to repair of unsound altered fabric to promote the conservation of the structure, and the evidenced restoration of elements of the Phase 1 layout.\
  The affected fabric and planform was of low architectural interest and moderate historical interest, whilst the proposals will conserve Phase 1 fabric which is of very high architectural and historical interest. The potential Phase 1 door towards the centre of the wall is not proposed for reinstatement on the basis that the evidence for its location is not definite and its phasing uncertain. However, the works form part of the wider programme of restoration of the Phase 1 layout and circulation. | | HG03 | Remove corridor partition and block south-west door
- Loss of Phase 3 fabric
- Erosion of Phase 3 planform & circulation
- Enhancement of Phase 1 planform & circulation | M | + | The proposal has removed an internal partition forming a corridor along the edge of the room, associated with the reorganisation of Phase 3.\
  The affected fabric and planform was of low architectural interest and moderate historical interest, whilst the proposals will enhance the legibility of the Phase 1 building which is of very high architectural and historical interest. These works form part of the wider programme of restoration of the Phase 1 layout and circulation. | | | Block inserted internal door in south-west corner of room
- Enhancement of Phase 1 planform & circulation
- Conservation of fabric | Neg | + | The proposal will block an inserted door between the former hall and parlour of the house, an alteration attributed to the Phase 3 reorganisation of the property.\
  The affected fabric and planform was of low architectural interest and moderate historical interest, whilst the proposals will enhance the legibility of the Phase 1 building which is of very high architectural and historical interest. These works form part of the wider programme of restoration of the Phase 1 layout and circulation.\
  The wall above the doorway is also poorly supported and has led to visible movement in the masonry. The blocking of this door is considered to therefore also improve the structural integrity of the wall. | | HG60 | Clean internal fabric (beams, timber framing, and masonry)
- Loss of historic plaster | M | - | The proposal has removed all internal plasterwork, wallpaper, accrued layers of paintwork, floor coverings and the patina of age from exposed masonry.\
  The affected fabric is likely to have included Phase 1 plasterwork, and... |

## WOODSEATS FARMHOUSE

| Proposal | Potential Effects | Sensitivity | Heritage Impact Assessment | |----------|-------------------|-------------|---------------------------| | HG10 | Repair rubble fire back and stone jambs of fireplace

- Conservation of fabric | M + | The proposal will repair the Phase 3 fireplace to working condition, requiring an indent repair to the south jamb and the repointing in lime mortar of the fire back.\
  Stonework is to be sourced and dressed to match, with details to be confirmed with the PDNPA conservation team.\
  The proposals will result in the conservation and enhancement of the historic fabric. | | HG63 | Dry line internal walls.
- Loss of character.
- Conservation of fabric | M o | The proposal will install a proprietary dry lining system of magnesium silicate board mounted on steel tracks tied into masonry joints. This proposal has been adopted to address severe internal damp recorded by the owner and previous tenant of the property and in consideration of conservation research and guidance published by Historic Scotland (2013). The installation of this system requires the removal of internal plaster, an assessment of which is included under proposal HG60.\
  The principal negative effects arising from the proposal will be the loss of legibility of the slight unevenness of internal walls and a reduction in room dimensions. The dry lining system will not extend into window/doors, with plaster proposed to feather in around stone quoined surrounds to preserve their profile and legibility. No architectural details are present that would be hidden or impacted by this proposal, and the room is of sufficient size and the cladding sufficiently thin that any change to internal dimensions is unlikely to be legible.\
  The system has conservation credentials in regard to improving thermal insulation and is vapour open such that the masonry behind will be able to breath. In allowing an air gap against the masonry, the system will also assist in reducing internal damp and condensation. It is considered that the benefits from insulation and reduction in damp will balance the harm to internal character through loss of legibility of slightly uneven walls. | | HM02 | Unblocking and reinstating a door in the south corner of the building
- Loss of Phase 3 fabric
- Erosion of Phase 3 planform & circulation
- Enhancement of Phase | Neg + | The proposal will remove an inserted window from the Phase 1 door in the south corner of the building. The new door will take reference from doors at the property, comprising a plank and batten door with strap hinges and pintles, and latches.\
  The effected fabric relates to the Phase 3 reorganisation of the building, which are overall attributed a low architectural and moderate historical interest in respect to comprising alterations of low architectural and moderate historical interest. |

### WOODSEATS FARMHOUSE

| Proposal | Potential Effects | Sensitivity | Heritage Impact Assessment | |----------|-------------------|-------------|---------------------------| | | I planform & circulation | | architectural quality to facilitate a change in planform that is commonplace to the period and not attributed to a significant historical event. The effected fabric itself comprises a low ashlar infill and plain modern timber casement of a character that detracts from the architectural interest of the building. The proposals will re-establish the position of the Phase 1 entrance which is of very high architectural interest as an early and high-quality example of a regionally distinctive building tradition. These works form part of the wider programme of restoration of the Phase 1 layout and circulation that will enhance the historical and architectural interest of the building. | | HM01 W1.02 | Removal of south-west door and reinstatement of former window

- Loss of Phase 3 fabric
- Erosion of Phase 3 planform & circulation
- Enhancement of Phase 1 planform & circulation | M + | The proposal will remove an inserted door and reinstate a Phase 1 window. The designs of the reinstated fabric have been developed on sound evidence for the position of the west jamb of the window and the location and division of its missing mullions and transoms. The effected fabric relates to the Phase 3 reorganisation of the building, which are overall attributed a low architectural and moderate historical interest in respect to comprising alterations of low architectural quality to facilitate a change in planform that is commonplace to the period and not attributed to a significant historical event. The affected fabric itself comprises a plain stone framed doorway which is simple in its design but reflective of the period in which the alteration was made and is therefore attributed a measure of historical and architectural interest. The insertion of the door does not appear, however, to have been undertaken to enhance or bring up to date the elevation of the building, but rather to facilitate a functional reordering of the interior to provide greater compartmentalisation of space possibly reflecting increased family size as well as the increasing division of business and family spaces and the movement between them. The proposals will re-establish the position of the Phase 1 entrance which is of very high architectural interest as an early and high-quality example of a regionally distinctive building tradition. These works form part of the wider programme of restoration of the Phase 1 layout and circulation that will enhance the historical and architectural interest of the building. | | HG61 | Install new oak skirting flush with wall plaster | n/a o | The proposal will install new oak skirting along the base of the walls, recessed flush with the plaster. There is no evidence for the presence or form of the former skirting in the property. The proposed skirting is to be finished flush with the wall, providing the benefits of skirting without it detracting from the 17th century character of the walls. | | HG62 | Ceiling finish and joist treatment
- Loss of Phase 1 fabric
- Conservation of fabric | H + | This proposal will undertake like for like repairs to discrete sections of timbers identified by a timber repair specialist as requiring restoration. Demonstrable that works are necessary and where the retention of historic fabric is prioritised. The extent and techniques of proposed works aims to preserve historic fabric where possible, and to match | | Proposal | Potential Effects | Sensitivity | Heritage Impact Assessment | |----------|------------------|-------------|---------------------------| | HG53 | Oak window boards to be fitted flush with window ledge
- Conservation of fabric | n/a | The proposal will install new window boards.\
  No historic window boards are present, the stone of the sills exposed in each window.\
  The proposal will cover and protect the stone of the sills, which is varying degrees of wear, without impacting historic fabric or the form or character of the windows.\
  The proposals will result in the conservation and enhancement of the historic fabric. | | HMS1 | Install underfloor heating and repair and replace flag floor
- Loss of archaeological remains
- Conservation of fabric | ? | The proposal has introduced a new wet underfloor heating system.\
  The works required the removal of asphalt floor covering; the removal of stone flags; the excavation of the floor to a required depth to allow a concrete screed to be placed (assessed above); and for the cleaning, turning and reinstatement of the original stone flags at their historic levels. The affected sub-floor deposits may have been of archaeological interest. Doorways were unaffected by the works.\
  Underfloor heating technology is compatible with the objectives of conservation, providing gentle low temperature radiant heat that limits condensation, a cause of internal dampness (Historic England, 2016b). There is also considered to be a benefit to the architectural interest of the room in respect to hiding modern heating apparatus.\
  Heritage concerns with the system are usually on the basis of the potential harm that can arise to archaeological deposits. The extent to which the installation of the system truncated or destroyed archaeological remains is not known, the works have, however, been completed and any harm cannot be reversed.\
  It is therefore considered that the most appropriate strategy is to avoid further damage from removal but to put in place a recommendation that the subfloor is inspected archaeologically at such time that the underfloor heating needs to be repaired or replaced. | | HM50 | Install sika tanking application to 900mm lower course of masonry of all walls
- Loss of historic fabric
- Conservation of fabric | H | The proposal has introduced sika tanking and underfloor concrete screed that were installed as part of the works undertaken outside of Listed Building Consent.\
  Whilst the steps of diagnosis and investigation to inform remediation works were not documented, the invasive works have now been completed. In consideration of how this harm could best be mitigated options of removal and reinstatement of lime plaster were weighed against the retention of the tanking system.\
  Removal and reinstatement would revert the building to a traditional |

### WOODSEATS FARMHOUSE

| Proposal | Potential Effects | Sensitivity | Heritage Impact Assessment | |----------|-------------------|-------------|---------------------------| | HG09 W1.05 | Reinstatement of fire side window. | N + | The proposal will remove the existing stonework blocking the former fire window in the north-east wall, requiring the insertion of new stonework to form jambs and sill and a new window frame. The window is believed to have been blocked during Phase 3 when other alterations were also being made to the hall, and is not considered to contribute to the significance of the building in its current form. The reinstatement of the window will restore an important Phase 1 architectural feature that is characteristic of the regional form of end-lobby entrance houses, of which Woodseats farmhouse is an important example. The scope of the proposal has been kept purposefully simple, basing it on the evidence that is available without any further supposition in relation to the original style of window frame. The affect will be legible as a modern reopening of a Phase 1 window, with any harm from the loss of historic interest associated with its Phase 3 blocking greatly outweighed by the benefit to the architectural interest of the building in enhancing the legibility of its Phase 1 design. |

Form, providing a breathable interior wall which should in theory enable the transmission of moisture through the wall (although it should be noted that a reduction in draughts and loss of regular open fires as the principal form of heating within the property will close off traditional routes of moisture transmission out of the building that may lead to internal condensation on cool surfaces). The works to remove the sika will risk damage to the internal face of the masonry and historic flags, with the associated risk that the damp issue may not be adequately alleviated.

The alternative, which is to retain the tanking system, will not risk further harm and whilst not a traditional solution, it is recognised by both Historic England and SPAB guidance as being beneficial in cases of excessive damp that cannot be addressed by more traditional means (Historic England, 2016a; SPAB, 2018).

In weighing these options, it is considered that since the physical harm caused by the installation cannot be wholly reversed, the balance lies on whether reinstatement would be more harmful then retention. It is therefore deemed that where it can be demonstrated, by a representative trial under guidance provided by a relevant specialist, that the tanking cannot be removed without causing extensive harm through removal of historic fabric than it is recommended that its retention is the most appropriate option. This is accordance with advice from SPAB’s technical advisory team and the structural report which was prepared by a conservation accredited engineer (Alan Wood, 2019). CONCLUSION

SUMMARY OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

The front room of Woodseats Farmhouse represents the former principal hall of the house, which would have been a focal point for domestic social, and business activities. The circulation and planform of the hall were regionally distinctive and represented an early example of their type. Later changes in the early 19th Century, subdivided the room, changed circulation and built a new fireplace. More recent changes retained the overall layout but introduced new fixed furniture, a new fireplace insert and included extensive redecoration.

The room as it stood prior to the current owner commencing works is considered to have made a moderate positive contribution to the national significance of the building.

SUMMARY OF IMPACT

The proposed works include a range of measures to alleviate damp, repair structural issues and targeted restoration.

The overall objectives of the work are considered to be in accordance with the conservation of the building. Whilst certain measures, for which retrospective listed building consent is sought, may have been invasive and damaging to the historic fabric, they can be appropriate techniques where justified. As the investigation and design of remediation measures were not consulted on at the time, it is now difficult to conclude whether the works were proportionate to the problems.

Assessment has therefore been undertaken on a basis of whether retaining the works would be more or less harmful then their reversal.

Invasive works that are identified as having been harmful comprise the loss of Phase 3 fabric and plan; loss of plaster relating to Phase 1; and the potential loss of archaeological remains below floor level.

Further works are also proposed which are aimed at the enhancement of the heritage interest of the building in respect to increasing the legibility of its Phase 1 organisation. These works are identified as positive.

CONCLUSION

Overall, it is considered that the works as have been undertaken have resulted in harm to the building, and that it is difficult to determine whether the benefits they bring to the conservation of the asset would outweigh that impact. On balance of retention verses reinstatement, it is considered that further evidence may be required to determine if removal of the sika tanking would be harmful to the fabric but that no further harm is likely to arise from their retention. In respect to the other proposals yet to be undertaken, it is considered that the works will lead to an enhancement of the contribution that the room makes to the significance of the building.

AUTHOR

James Thomson BA MA PGDip (Conserv.Hist.Env) MCIfA Edited by Oliver Jessop BA MA MCIfA

06.12.2019 APPENDIX 1: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The significance of heritage assets is their value to this and future generations because of the archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic interest embodied in their physical presence and way in which they are experienced (after definitions in National Planning Policy Framework). The Planning Practice Guidance defines these heritage interests as:

- **Archaeological interest**: As defined in the Glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework, there will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially holds, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point.

- **Architectural and Artistic interest**: These are interests in the design and general aesthetics of a place. They can arise from conscious design or fortuitously from the way the heritage asset has evolved. More specifically, architectural interest is an interest in the art or science of the design, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of buildings and structures of all types. Artistic interest is an interest in other human creative skill, like sculpture.

- **Historic interest**: An interest in past lives and events (including pre-historic). Heritage assets can illustrate or be associated with them. Heritage assets with historic interest not only provide a material record of our nation’s history, but can also provide meaning for communities derived from their collective experience of a place and can symbolise wider values such as faith and cultural identity.

Establishing what factors contribute to the significance of an asset, and how, is crucial to understand its vulnerability to change and in ensuring appropriate conservation strategies are identified which preserve and enhance that significance. Significance is assessed in line with the following scale:

| Heritage Significance | Description | |-----------------------|-------------| | International | Heritage assets of outstanding universal value which fulfil the criteria for inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List. | | High National | Heritage assets of exceptional interest, and of particular or national importance that fulfil the criteria for listing at a high grade (i.e. as a Scheduled Monument, or Grade I or II\* Listed Building / Registered Park and Garden). | | National | Heritage assets of special interest that fulfil the criteria for listing (i.e. as a Conservation Area, Grade II Listed Building / Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Protected Wreck Site). | | Regional | Heritage assets that fulfil the criteria for local listing (as set out by local authority guidance or Historic England’s advice note on Local Listing). Broadly defined, such assets possess architectural or historical interest that notably contributes to local distinctiveness or possesses archaeological interest that contributes towards the objectives of a regional research agenda. | | Local | Heritage asset that fails to fulfil the criteria for local listing but that possesses sufficient interest in one area to be considered a non-designated heritage asset. | | Negligible | Heritage asset of very limited heritage interest, typically due to poor preservation, survival or restricted contextual associations. | **Assessment of Sensitivity**

Elements of a heritage asset, including elements of their setting, may not contribute equally to its significance, reflecting the varying degree of heritage interest embodied in its fabric, where there is capacity for an asset to support change without loss of significance, and where there are opportunities for significance to be enhanced. This sensitivity is expressed in line with the following scale:

| Sensitivity (contribution to significance) | Effect of Proposal | |-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | **High** | Very Positive | | Element is fundamental to the key heritage interest/s that define the significance of the asset. | Proposals will greatly reveal or enhance the contribution the effected element makes to the significance of the heritage asset, and/or substantially contribute towards the conservation of the asset. | | **Medium** | Positive | | Element makes an important contribution to the significance of the asset, but likely relates to either a phase of lower heritage interest or relates to a key phase but has been affected by moderate (under 50%) loss of fabric. | Proposals will better reveal or enhance the contribution the effected element makes to the significance of the heritage asset and/or contribute towards the conservation the asset. | | **Low** | Neutral | | Element makes a slight contribution to the significance of the asset; its interest having been compromised due to substantial loss or alteration (over 50%) | Proposals will preserve the contribution the effected element makes to the significance of the heritage asset. | | **Neutral** | Negative | | Element does not contribute to the significance of the asset. | Proposals will result in the partial loss of the positive contribution the effected element makes to the significance of the heritage asset and/or will have a detrimental effect on the conservation of the asset. | | **Negative** | Very Negative | | Element represents an unsympathetic change which detracts from the significance of the asset. | Proposals will result in the total loss of the positive contribution the effected element makes to the significance of the heritage asset and/or will have a significant detrimental effect on the conservation of the asset. | | **Uncertain** | Uncertain | | Sensitivity uncertain: more information required. | Effect uncertain: more information required. |

**Assessment of Effect**

An assessment of the effect of the proposed works considers the contribution made by the affected element to the significance of a heritage asset, and the nature of any effect (both negative and positive) to that contribution. The scale of effect adopted is set out in the following table: SUPPORTING MATERIAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alan Wood & Partners, 2019. Structural Report on Woodseats Farm Farmhouse.

Barley, M.W. (ed) 1990. Chapters from The Agrarian History of England and Wales, volume 5 - The Buildings of the Countryside: 1500-1750. CUP.

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014. Standard and guidance for desk-based assessment. Revised 2017.

English Heritage, 2014. Practical Building Conservation: Building Environment.

Historic England, 2008. Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance.

Historic England, 2015. Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2.

Historic England, 2015. The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3. Revised December 2017.

Historic England, 2016a. Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: Insulating Solid Walls.

Historic England 2006c. Historic Farmsteads Preliminary Character Statement: Yorkshire and the Humber Region.

Historic England, 2016b. Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: Insulating Solid Ground Floors.

Historic Scotland, 2013. Short Guide: Fabric Improvements for Energy Efficiency in Traditional Buildings. Historic Environment Scotland.

Hoskins, W.G. 1953. The Rebuilding of Rural England, 1570-1640, in Past and Present, vol. 4, pp. 44-59.

Mercer, E. 1975: English Vernacular Houses. Royal Commission on the Historic Monuments of England, MHH Contracting, 2019. Schedule of Works: Woodseats Farm, Bradfield.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2016. Planning Practice Guidance. Revised 2018.

Royal Commission on the Historic Monuments of England, 1986. Rural Houses of West Yorkshire 1400-1830. HMSO.

SPAB 2017. Control of Dampness.

TJC. 2018a. Woodseats Farm, Windy Bank, Low Bradfield, South Yorkshire: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment.

TJC 2018b. Woodseats Farmhouse, Windy Bank, Low Bradfield, South Yorkshire: Historic Building Appraisal and Heritage Assessment

Walker Cunnington Architects (WCA), 2019. Woodseats Farm, Bradfield: Repairing/ Renovating/ Conserving Masonry